Clarke v .Kato, Smith and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

English Legal System Formative Assessment 2003 Clarke v .Kato, Smith and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc Cutter v .Eagle Star Insurance Company House of Lords October 22, 1993 -What are the material facts of the case? -What point of statutory interpretation arose in the case? Which rule of statutory interpretation was applied and why? Word Count (minus quotations): 1,211 The two cases were heard simultaneously by the House of Lords, as both addressed the same underlying issue, the application of the word 'road' in section 145 (3) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In the Eagle Star proceedings, the plaintiff had been injured when sitting in the passenger seat of a car, parked in a parking bay of a multi-story car park, as a result of a cigarette igniting inflammable gas which had leaked from a can of lighter fuel left in the car by the driver. The plaintiff obtained a judgment in the county court for damages for negligence against the driver but, although the driver had been insured, he had forfeited his right to indemnity under the policy. The plaintiff had thereupon commenced proceedings for the recovery of the judgment sum from the insurers as being liable under section 151 of the 1988 Act to 'satisfy any judgment against an assured where the assureds liability arose out of a matter required to be covered by section 145(3)(a)'. ...read more.

Middle

Judges are free to choose any one of the following rules of statutory interpretation: Literal rule2 (giving words their exact meaning), Golden rule3 (broad and narrow), and the Mischief rule4. The reality is that it is difficult to predict the interpretative approach that a court will adopt in a particular case. As well as being free to decide which rule to apply, judges themselves also decide whether the chosen rule is the correct one. This simply gives the judges ultimate power, as they control sovereignty via their decisions. Parliament only has the jurisdiction to change the Act, whereas judges are free to choose how to apply a certain Act by means of different rules, dependant on individual circumstances of each case, mindful of course of Parliaments original wishes. As early as 1938, Willis wrote "... a court invokes whichever of the rules produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice in the case before it. Although the literal rule is the one most frequently referred to in express terms, the courts treat all three as valid and refer to them as occasion demands, but, naturally enough, do not assign any reason for choosing one rather than another.5" There may even be cases that a judge picks an interpretative principle that allows an outcome that goes with his own view, even where he otherwise favours a different standpoint. ...read more.

Conclusion

Both were admirably summarised by L J-G Clyde saying that in first instance the purpose of legislation is achieved by the creation on an offence adding "Against the employment of a broad approach to express the purpose of the Act must be put the undesirability of adopting anything beyond a strict construction of provisions which have penal consequences." Secondly if the whole body of statutory regulations and provisions were applicable to car parks as 'roads' and therefore 'public spaces', that would constitute some invasion to the proprietors rights and his land as parts I, III, V, VIII of the Act of 1984 contain a variety of such powers, so effectively undermining the owners exclusive rights to his property. His Lordship also drew on sections 1 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 which followed the report of the North Committee of April 1988 in which "....the word 'road' stands alone it bears its ordinary meaning and is not to be extended to public places such as car parks". In view of the decision, his Lordship put the onus to change the legislation on the Parliament, in his summary, if the decision was deemed to contravene their intended meaning, by stating "In relation to the legislation before us, if it is thought that an extension of the application of the Act, or any part of it, is required, that must, in my view, be matter for parliament to achieve8. ...read more.

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

The Land Registration Act 2002 is going to change extensively the manner in which conveyancers operate but my belief is that only some time after the new Act comes into force and use, will the true extent of the changes it creates be measured.

* What remedy did Parliament produce to solve the mischief? * What was the reasoning behind the mischief? Advantages Avoids absurdity More flexible than Golden and Literal Disadvantages Circumstances are different from when Heydon's case was decided Not always obvious what the original mischief was There are lengthy preambles on

The mischief rule was set out in (Heydon's case, 1584). A case demonstrating the use of the mischief rule is (Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, 1981). In the Abortion Act 1967 it stated that a pregnancy should be 'terminated by a registered medical practitioner'.

In modern times, the rule has been used in a number of cases, which include: Smith v Hughes (1960) where prostitutes inside a building tapping on a window to attract clients were convicted of soliciting in a public place. Under both literal rule, and the golden rule, this decision may

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not provide any guidelines for the identification of the items of loss to be compensated; nor does it lay down any criteria for the computation of the quantum of compensation for each item of loss.

on their own and are too distraught to approach the police or a minister for assistance It is advisable at this point and taking into consideration Angela's emotionally fragility and fear that Gemma solicits the assistance of a police officer or a person appointment by the minister who is qualified under the statute to bring an action on Angela's behalf.

Applying this principle, Deirdre will loose her beneficial right and Alf will take free of it. It is also possible that Deirdre may try to prevent the sale. It is for the trustee to act in the interests of the trust as a whole and not to gain any personal advantage as this is a breach of trust.

It is another example of the courts taking the words literally. One of the problems with this case is that the Queen?s Bench Divisional Court had to decide what the word ?passengers? meant. The judges looked at The Oxford English Dictionary of 1847 which showed when the act was passed